RAMBHAU SUKHDEO SADU BHAGAT Vs. SHREENARAYAN SURAJMAL & OTHERS
LAWS(BOM)-2017-11-202
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AT: NAGPUR)
Decided on November 02,2017

Rambhau Sukhdeo Sadu Bhagat And ... Appellant
VERSUS
Shreenarayan Surajmal And Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Z.A.HAQ,J. - (1.) This Special Civil Application was called out on 4 th October, 2017. On that date, none appeared for the petitioners. Considering the directions given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment dated 4 th July, 2017 to dispose the Special Civil Application within six months, the matter was kept on 5th October, 2017. It was not called out on that date. The matter was called out yesterday (1st November, 2017). Again none appeared for the petitioners. Shri B.N. Mohta, Advocate appeared for the respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4. Shri B.N. Mohta, Advocate pointed out that after remand by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, notices are not issued to the parties. Civil Appeal No.8402/2017 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was filed by the present petitioners. The present petitioners (appellants before the Hon'ble Supreme Court) were represented by Advocate. Thus, the petitioners are supposed to be aware that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has remanded the matter to this Court for deciding the Special Civil Application afresh and the matter is to be disposed within six months from 4th July, 2017. In these facts, I felt that it was not necessary to again send notice to the petitioners to pursue the Special Civil Application filed by them. This Court is not supposed to invite the parties at every stage of the matter and normally, the notices are issued to the parties, who are not aware about the pendency of the proceedings, and the purpose of issuance of notice is only to bring to the knowledge of the parties that the proceedings are filed by some party against those noticees. Therefore, I called upon Shri B.N. Mohta, Advocate to argue the matter and appointed Shri N.R. Patil, Advocate to assist the Court. Accordingly, order came to be passed on 1st November, 2017. After hearing for some time, I kept the matter today with a notice on the daily board that the matter is part heard so that if the petitioners or their Advocate are / is interested, they may appear. When the matter is called out today, again there is no appearance on behalf of the petitioners.
(2.) Heard Shri B.N. Mohta, Advocate for the respondent Nos.2 to 4. With the assistance of Shri B.N. Mohta, Advocate and Shri N.R. Patil, Advocate I have also gone through the documents placed on the record of this Special Civil Application.
(3.) The dispute is about 27 acres and 31 gunthas of field Survey No.262 situated at Andhura. The owners of the field filed an application under Section 100(2) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958 (for short "Tenancy Act") on 6th January, 1968 seeking declaration that persons, who were shown as non-applicants in that application, were not tenants in respect of the suit field. The proceedings under Section 46 and Section 48 of the Tenancy Act for conferral of statutory ownership of the suit field were pending since 1963 - 1964. By order dated 19 th September, 1968 passed by the Additional Tahsildar, both the proceedings i.e. proceedings under Section 46 read with Section 48 of the Tenancy Act and the proceedings under Section 100(2) of the Tenancy Act were consolidated. The Additional Tahsildar conducted enquiry, recorded evidence and by order dated 30th December, 1968 concluded that the non-applicants were not tenants of the suit field. ;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.